“…it is emblematic of liberalism’s intention, articulated in the Progressive era and pursued ever since, to replace constitutional politics with a system of interest group (and racial) competition, of bargaining for government benefits within the administrative or welfare state presided over by activist judges, policy “experts,” and bureaucrats (in collusion with congressional committees).”

The term ‘activist’ judges has become very loaded these days. The nomination process has become politicized and nearly toxic, to be sure.

I looked up Kesler’s quote in context and found he defined 3 conservative camps. Here’s my brief summary, so feel free to add, subtract, or disagree:

1. Traditionalists–Often coming from literary and historical backgrounds, Kesler’s traditionalist standout is Russell Kirk, and he mentions Robert Nisbet. Many traditionalists are more likely to be religious, and find greater wisdom in religious doctrine and teaching about how to live and what to do than most anything else. Some can see an unbroken line back to Aquinas, and they tend to view Enlightenment rationalism with great suspicion. Kirk and Nisbet adopted Edmund Burke’s defense of the British Constitution against what they saw as the ahistorical universalism of the French Revolution.

Many look around and see cultural decay, decline, and often times a moral corruption in society.

I’d say Ross Douthat, currently at the NY Times, is an example of a practicing Catholic and conservative. He’s written a book about the decline of institutionalized religion in the public square and the rise of new-age, mega-churches, self-help and “spirituality.” He also is addressing a contemporary audience at the New York Times.

Robert Bork, despite his faults, was railroaded as an ‘activist’ judge and could be defined as a traditionalist.

2.Libertarians–On Kesler’s view, libertarians are more comfortable with Enlightenment rationalism than the traditionalists are, but the original sin for libertarians is collectivism. This collectivism arises from basing the Enlightenment rationalist foundation in virtue. Marxist, Socialist, and Communist leaders advocated and sometimes succeeded in bloody revolution, and many genuinely believed they were leading humanity to some dialectically “progressive” point in the future, seeing materialist reality for what it was, and acting for the good of all. They were ‘virtuous’. Many in these systems believed they knew better than individuals what was best for them, deciding how they should live, and what they should do. As is common knowledge, this had disastrous results, including food shortages, external aggression, mass murder, forced labor camps, and the systems eventually rotting from the inside out.

For Kesler, libertarians often come from economic and philosophical backgrounds, and he breaks them into two groups. The first group consists of Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, and Friedrich Hayek. For them, freedom simply works, scarcity is all around, and you don’t need to deduce your way back to an underlying rights-based moral theory to justify your defense of individual freedom. Adam Smith’s invisible hand might be a good example.

Kesler’s other group are those who need to deduce the morality of the market from the rights of man. If the rights of man don’t come from God, is there some sufficiently transcendent source for our knowledge and thus our moral thinking? Is there a source that would justify giving some people moral legitimacy to rule over others? Where do man’s rights come from? J.S. Mill’s utilitarianism may not be enough, so, the search continues. Kesler offers Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, and Richard Epstein as examples.

In my experience, personal liberty is primary to libertarians. Libertarians often draw a ring around the individual, and proceed from there. How one draws that ring is of some importance.

3.Neoconservatives–Often coming from backgrounds of academic social science, chased away from the New Left and ‘mugged by reality’, Kesler’s neoconservatives would include Norman Podhoretz, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and James Q. Wilson. On Kesler’s view, they come to distrust ideology, rationalist political theory and have been persuaded by the fact/value distinction. Doubts are bred from within the social sciences and political sciences about how one can be sure of what one knows, especially when that knowledge becomes a source for public policy and a way for a few people to run the lives of many others.

‘The slippage of the June 30 deadline is not entirely unexpected, nor really all that consequential. But coming up shortly is a deadline of real consequence: July 9. If the Administration does not submit an agreement to Congress by then, the review period under Corker-Menendez extends from 30 to 60 days. During that time, the Administration cannot by law lift sanctions, while Congress reviews and possibly votes on the deal.’

‘This foreign policy mistake of assuming other peoples think and believe as we do has been continually made by the West for decades.’

And it continually will! The ideas, however, which many people think and believe at a given point are always in flux. You can’t step in the same river twice.

Just watch how politicians pander to voters and some reasonably smart twenty year-old is leaning back in a chair right now, thinking he/she knows it all.

And many in the Muslim world have no idea how many of us think and believe. Most of us have never met and never will. It’s like a Hall of Mirrors!

‘Most important is the restatement of the radical difference between Islamic states and Western ones, “the awesome gulf that lies between the Muslim order, where the law is the grim law of punishment and vengeance, and the rational and liberal traditions of the West.” The failed attempts to bridge this gulf by simply importing Western notions of human rights and political freedom confirm this point. Such projects also reflect an ignorance of the incompatibility of the tribal mentality with the canons of liberal democracy. Despite the support of the Europeans after World War I in creating nations with constitutional governments, the Arabs “have resorted more and more to their basic social and religious institutions, the tribe and Islam, to provide the structure of government. Any progress towards political maturity has been stultified by their inability to comprehend any loyalty other than that to family, tribe or religious sect’

A good amount of this strikes me as true, and it hasn’t stopped the last two Presidents from assuming that inside every Iraqi was a yearning for democratic institutional/constitutional representation, and/or that every Egyptian was bending on the arc of history towards liberation theology/activist justice.

We still have security, business, diplomatic, colonial, financial, educational and various other interests through the Muslim world. The radical Islamists still want the infidel out of the Arabian peninsula.

What will be the next cause that drives major change in American life, allowing many to join in solidarity with some truth about freedom they find larger than themselves, yearning to enshrine it in law?

What kind of consequences will it have, and what kind of laws will it make?

‘But where do we go from here? What about people who disagree, in good faith, with no ill intent towards gay people? Will ministers, to the extent they play a dual role in ratifying marriage licenses, have to officiate big gay weddings? Will bakers and photographers have to work them? What about employment-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation—most states lack them, but are they now required? And what about tax-exempt status for religious schools, the issue that came up during oral argument?’

“It is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have free scope.”

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Maybe Machiavelli was just really an artist and writer working well within the bounds of traditional moral thinking (Catholic and Aristotelian through the church), but just wanted an audience? to be little shocking?

‘In King v. Burwell, the Court sent a signal to the political branches: Don’t try to uproot the ACA through technical legal arguments designed to throw sand in its gears. Don’t try to blow it up through clever lawyering. If you want to change health care policy, do it through standard political reforms. Do it through democratic politics. If you can’t manage to do that, then you had better get used to the idea of universal health care in the United States.’

‘The issue was whether only state-established exchanges could issue tax credits, or whether the federal exchanges could also. Challengers to IRS regulations pointed to the words “established by the State” in the legislation as clear and unambiguous that subsidies were limited to state exchanges.

The Court rejected this assertion:

These provisions suggest that the Act may not always use the phrase “established by the State” in its most natural sense. Thus, the meaning of that phrase may not be as clear as it appears when read out of context. [at 11.]’

‘Having refrained from opining about the merits of the case before today, I am not going to start now. I find the opinion by the Chief Justice to be reasonable-sounding — just as I found those of Abbe and Nick. But I find Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion ultimately to be more compelling — just as I found the arguments of Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon, the legal architects of this challenge -‘

‘It is only in light of this background that we can evaluate books like Scruton’s The Soul of the World and Wilson’s The Meaning of Human Existence. Both books are haunted by the fact that modern science seems to have stripped the natural order of any meaning or purpose and relocated it all within the narrow compass of the human mind. Both, accordingly, tend to treat religion, morality, art, and literature alike as if they were all merely artifacts of the mind, expressions of the way human consciousness interprets the world but not of the way the world really is in itself (though Scruton is a little more ambiguous where religion is concerned).’

Our author writes about his email correspondence with the American who threatened the creators of South Park for (potentially) depicting Mohammed:

‘Zachary Adam Chesser, better known by his Internet sobriquet of “Abu Talhah al-Amrikee,” is the 20-year-old Virginia man who was indicted this month for supporting a Somalia-based al Qaeda affiliate, al-Shabab. Most Americans learned of him in April 2010, when Chesser’s media stunt wishing death upon the creators of the South Park cartoon thrust him into the national spotlight.’

It’s interesting that in his desperation to join a righteous cause, he might have forgotten that how to interpret Islam itself is also worth thinking about, despite the injustice and legitimate grievances there are in the Muslim world (as well as the failures of Muslim societies to provide educational and economic opportunities…and representative rule as there is plenty of injustice coming from Muslim governments upon their own citizens).

So, is there a current increase in violent crime in NYC right now, under De Blasio?

This blog tends to be sympathetic to the idea that cops aren’t social workers, nor should they be. Authority is a tricky thing to wield, as it usually distances people from those they serve. Ideally, this requires not just legal authority, but smart policy and moral decency as well. You’ve got to get the incentives right and it’s good to have good people.

Cops, especially, have to deal with among the worst elements in our society day-in and day-out, as well as the ever-present threat of violence and the politics of their cities, precincts and fellow officers. A few cops in NYC’s large force are no doubt rotten apples, some meat-heads notoriously go into the policing business, some cops are assholes, some are aiming for retirement, some are great cops, some are very good cops, many have acted in truly heroic fashion at some point in their careers.

I think the activist high-water-mark may have been reached.

—————–

Speaking of authority, Virginia Postrel took a look at that Reason magazine subpoena (commenters at Reason being the commenters at Reason).

‘Los Angeles legal blogger Ken White has obtained a grand jury subpoena issued to Reason.com, the online home of the libertarian magazine I edited throughout the 1990s. The subpoena seeks information about commenters who posted in response to an article by the site’s editor Nick Gillespie about the letter that Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht wrote to Judge Katherine B. Forrest before she sentenced him to life in prison without parole.’

The Chinese government may be rather authoritarian, bureaucratic and post-ish Communist, and the quite old Chinese culture much more conformist than American culture, but such a system holds attractions for certain people.

Cowen responds to some points made about the book:

‘1. The United States probably should have less democracy along some margins, if only fewer referenda in California and no state and local elections of judges, dog catchers, and the like. If a writer cites “democracy” as obviously and always good for all choices, that writer isn’t thinking clearly.

2. More generally, the Western nations are relying on democracy less, as evidenced by the growing roles for central banks and also the European Union. That may or may not be desirable, but it’s worth considering our own trends before putting the high hat on.

2. The key to long-term living standards is stability of growth, just look at Denmark. There was never a heralded “Danish economic miracle,” but the country still has finished close to the top in terms of human welfare. Whether ostensibly meritocratic non-democratic systems can deliver such outcomes remains very much up for grabs, and Bell’s book hasn’t convinced me any that they can.

3. Arguably a country’s best chance of achieving meritocracy is to have many smart individuals who are culturally central. No system of government is going to overcome the lack of that.

4. Most humans in history seem to have favored meritocratic rule over democracy, and before the 19th century democracy was rare, even in the limited form of male-dominated or property owner-dominated republics. It is possible that the current advantage of democracy is rooted in technology, or some other time-specific factor, which ultimately may prove temporary. That said, I still observe plenty of democracies producing relatively well-run countries, so I don’t see significant evidence that a turning point against democracy has been reached.

5. To consider comparisons which hold a greater number of factors constant, I haven’t seen many (any?) serious people argue that Taiwan or South Korea would have done better to resist their processes of democratization.’

On a related note: In this blog’s experience, many discontents on the authoritarian (and yes totalitarian) Left can defer more ideological dreams of utopian, revolutionary equality into ‘democracy’ as a kind of catch-all. This requires authority. We all like the idea of some meritocracy.

“The purpose of bureaucracy is to devise a standard operating procedure which can cope effectively with most problems. A bureaucracy is efficient if the matters which it handles routinely are, in fact, the most frequent and if its procedures are relevant to their solution. If those criteria are met, the energies of the top leadership are freed to deal creatively with the unexpected occurrence or with the need for innovation. Bureaucracy becomes an obstacle when what it defines as routine does not address the most significant range of issues or when its prescribed mode of action proves irrelevant to the problem.”

and:

“Moreover, the reputation, indeed the political survival, of most leaders depends on their ability to realize their goals, however these may have been arrived at. Whether these goals are desireable is relatively less crucial.”

“Snap back.” That’s the term used by officials in Washington to describe an automatic re-imposition of multilateral sanctions on Iran if it violates a deal with the United States to scale backs its nuclear weapons program.’

and:

‘It’s not just the United States that isn’t reporting Iranian misbehavior to the United Nations. No country is reporting Iranian misbehavior to the United Nations, not even misbehavior that’s unfolding, as Sangwon Yoon put it in Bloomberg, in plain sight.’

‘For any deal to stick, the President will need to convince the skeptical-but-persuadable center, both in Congress and in the public at large, that he got the best possible deal, and that the Iranians will uphold their end. And the impression that we went in desperate for a “legacy” makes that harder to do.’

‘In the end, it is critical to understand that the current weaknesses in American foreign policy stem from the President’s adamant reluctance to commit to the use of American force in international relations, whether with Israel, Iran or with ISIS. Starting from that position, the President has to make huge unilateral concessions, and force his allies to do the same thing. Right now his only expertise is leading from behind. The President has to learn to be tough in negotiations with his enemies. Right now, sadly, he has demonstrated that toughness only in his relationships with America’s friends and allies.’

So writes Zoë Coombs Marr, a writer, comedian and “theatre maker,” and a woman of profound humility, in a piece complaining about the “devastating effects” of modest alterations in taxpayer subsidy for Australia’s commercially unviable artists. Artists who, while unloved by the general public, are nonetheless deserving of money they haven’t earned. “I’m here to bust a few myths,” says Ms Marr. And so begins a sorrowful tale of how bloody hard it is to be an artist whose work is of little interest to the public, and how hard it is to screw other people’s earnings out of other people.’

‘David Thompson’s blog has become an indispensable resource for arguments against the public funding of contemporary culture. ‘

If you build the art museums, some people believe ‘culture’ will follow.

So what’s wrong with liking art, recognizing some inherent value in the pleasure it gives and importance in one’s own life, potentially to other lives, and more broadly to one’s own society in supporting public funding of museums and art education?

Follow the link for an interesting debate.

For the libertarians, Bastiat is mentioned, and for the pop-art lovers, so is David Byrne of the Talking Heads (featured in the NY Times):

‘I refrain from calling Byrne a socialist, but what goes unsaid here is that our objections are to a prior assumption by believers in state power, namely that because some undertaking is worth doing, that the state ought to be doing it. If Byrne is addressing society in the above quote (and I think he is to some degree, although largely by not making Bastiat’s distinction), he is doing so as if it were an aggregate, even an abstraction. This may be the essence of the statist mind: that an abstracted aggregate of other people ought to be devoting their energies to the effort I deem noble. It’s from there that the demands flow. The collectivist is not asking you to give up expenditures on your hobby to support his (even if his has been fashioned into a career), he’s asking the abstract aggregate to change its trajectory or support the arts or something nebulous and lofty like that. Cargo Culture springs into being when such demands are met.’

For those interested, here are a few central questions I’ve gleaned from many discussions and debates of my own:

–‘Who decides what is good and not good art, and what the public ‘ought’ to be viewing?‘

-‘Should artists of ambition, some talent and potential genius be supported, and if so, how?Does this support always incentivize them to make better art?

–Does institutionalization lead to the easier appropriation of art by the religious, the politicians, the speculators and patrons, the culture vultures and various other ideological interests?

And if you’re still with me, we can always complicate matters further:

Beauty is no quality in things themselves, it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.